IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1254 of 2011 VIMLESH YADAV AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav - Advocate for appellants.

Shri SantoshYadav - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellants, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2011 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, District Sagar (M.P.), whereby appellant No.1, Vimlesh Yadav, was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, whereas appellant No.2, Naresh, and appellant No.3, Anil @ Annu Yadav, were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326/34 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo four years’ rigorous imprisonment and one year’s rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

17.05.2009 at about 07:00 p.m., the complainant, Santosh Sahu, was going to his house. At that time, appellant No.1 met him carrying an iron Baka. When the complainant asked him why he was carrying the Baka, appellant No.1 abused him using filthy language. Thereafter, appellant Nos.2 and 3 arrived at the spot and caught hold of the complainant. Appellant No.1 caused an injury to the complainant by means of the Baka on his right leg and again inflicted an injury on his back with the same weapon. Virendra Tiwari and Govind Patel were present at the spot and witnessed the incident. The complainant lodged a First Information Report (Ex. P/1) and was sent for medical examination. As the injuries were found to be grievous in nature, the complainant was referred to the Medical College, Bhopal/Jabalpur. On X-ray examination, a fracture of the left fibula bone was found. Statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation. Pursuant to the memorandum of the accused, the Baka was seized. The spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/9. The accused were arrested, and after completion of the investigation, a challan was filed before the competent Court, from where the case was committed to the Court of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge.

3. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded false implication in the present case.

4. After appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are illegal, improper, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be quashed. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 326/34, and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, despite the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongly rejected the defence version that the appellants were falsely implicated in the present case and had not committed any offence. The prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and material omissions, which go to the root of the case and render the prosecution story highly doubtful. Learned counsel further contends that appellant No.2 and 3 have been wrongly convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as there is no evidence on record to establish any common intention or pre-meeting of minds between the accused persons. In the absence of proof of common intention, the application of Section 34 IPC is wholly unsustainable in law. The appellants are liable, if at all, to be punished